Well if this is true lets all get ready for "Another one bites the dust" Another one under the bus.  Lets speculate who that would be...perhaps Hillary Clinton?

Based on Obama's concern for the treatment of terrorists, Obama probably not only agreed with releasing Abdelbaset Al Megrahi but also offered him a sincere apology and a lovely parting gift.

"I support the President but not his policies" - Blonde

Let's wait and see.

If this is, in fact, true it's a political disaster for the Obama administration.

However, if it's not true it will blow up in the faces of anyone who tries to pin something on Obama without irrefutable proof.  Mind you, those same standards don't apply when Republicans are involved, but we have to be careful.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

I doubt the British government would do this on their own ...

Then they "wag the dog."

metaphorsbwithu

...it's proof of inneffective foreign policy. Even if Scotland did not seek U.S. approval before hand, it was because they didn't respect Obama, or would anticipate this is something he would not object to.

And with nary a reaction from the White House, Scotland was correct. Obama is not someone to respect.  And the press, for the most part, is silent.

Could you imagine Scotland doing this if GWB was in office?

is the MSM hastily pressing "delete"

Of course, we don't know what Obama agreed to until more details are revealed.

What is most revealing is that, only a few months into his administration, people are perfectly ready to believe that Obama is deceptive enough to have gone along with the oil- for-terrorist scheme.That's not a great public endorsement of the Obama regime.

I do remember two things:

1. Hillary was pretty loud about not letting the terrorist go before the actual release. We don't yet know if she was acting on her own, or at Obama's request.

2. Obama himself was very retrained initially, saying basically, that Ghadaffi shouldn't celebrate the release in Tropoli. He said nothing before the actual release (that I can find, at least). Only after the enormous public outcry did he step up his rhetoric. Pretty odd behavior. 

No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.

Even if Obama did sign off on it,  and then tap danced all over the paper with his signature on it saying 'hell ya, turn him loose', nothing is going to happen to his sorry ass. 

It has gone that far in this country.  He knows it, the SCM enforces it, and nothing is going to happen to him, no matter what.  Hell, he'll brag about it when it comes out, he doesn't care.  The folks that put him in don't care and the SCM sure as hell don't care. That, is just the way it is, for now.  But not for much longer.

  There's really only two possible scenarios.  One, obama knew about it and didn't object or two, Scotland did act without consulting the US which would amount to a big diss towards obama considering the extreme political nature of this matter. 

  So obama is either complicit or irrelevant.

but, I haven't heard one story on this by the MSM. There's a story on fox web site but nothing else

Obama knew about this in advance of Al Megrahi's release, he's toast, no matter who or how many people he tries to lay this on. People won't buy the "It wasn't my area" excuse or the "The secretary of state was invoved in this decision" claim. Obama always wants to keep his skirts nice and starched and clean whenever there is a messy problem...He's doing it right now by trying to make it look like the investigation into the Bush administration's terrorist interrogation process, is all Holder's and the Justice Department's idea. That whole premise is bulls%#t, because Holder serves at the pleasure of the president and wouldn't launch an investigation like this without Obama's "ok". Time will tell, and it'll be interesting to see where this goes.   

"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan

The truth will eventually leak out. As Brown's government comes under more and more pressure, perhaps they will throw the Bamster under the bus. That would be fitting. It's already somewhat accepted in the UK that this was an 'oil for terrorist' deal. BP has just been awarded the contracts.

On the other hand, somewhat in the Bamter's defense, (!) after the Bamster kicked the British in the teeth by releasing Uighur terrorists from Guantanamo to Bermuda without consulting with them, the brits may have felt piqued enough that they saw fit to not consult with the Bamster on the Libyan. This would be appropriate actually, given the Bamster's callous disregard for America's most reliably world ally.

I just saw a clip of Chuck Schumer pusing for sanctions against Britain for this.  If it comes out that Obama knew and approved. . . .it will be difficult to walk back from that statement.

Oil-for-terrorist deal confirmed:

Lockerbie Bomber "Set Free for Oil": http://www.timesonline.co.uk

"The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal. Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libyaa and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards."